Alternative Reactor Design

This area is for ADVANCED theory and discussions only. If you just joined fusor.net, chances are this is NOT the area for you to be posting.
Royce Jones
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:38 pm
Real name: Royce Jones

Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Royce Jones »

I am looking at a change in the basic architecture of the Fusor as the starting point for future development, possibly leading to a Fusion/Fission reactor. I have rearranged the Fusor in an attempt to make it more effective. I call this the Linear Focused Fusion Reactor.

The Linear Focused Fusion Reactor is a form of “Fusor” but with a substantially different architecture. The architecture is cylindrical rather than spherical (there are some cylindrical Fusors), linear and focused from just two directions (compared to 360 degrees). The goal of this effort is to build a Linear Focused Fusion Reactor that can generate high neutron levels for use in a Fusion/Fission Engine for space energy and propulsion. The device is relatively simple and inexpensive to construct and based on well understood physics.

Benefits of the new architecture:
Compact cylindrical shape.
The fuel is completely ionized before it enters the reactor from each end. Current designs most often ionize the fuel slowly after it enters the reactor resulting in a very low level of active ions (>1%).
The reactor has a mechanism for confinement of low energy ions, at each end, which keeps them from flooding the reactor thereby reducing low energy (unproductive) collisions.
The center cathode grid is two-dimensional (rather than spherical), there are only two ways to approach the grid and each way is 180 degrees opposite resulting in high speed ion collisions. This is a major change in architecture and a patentable design.
The reactor operates at the “sweet spot” of D-T fusion at 100,000 volts on the center grid. However, this is achieved with only 50,000 volts since the well is two sided. Ions approaching the grid from either side are capable of fusion at or near the grid.
Another unique feature is that the ions that don’t fuse are collected at the end grids until they have sufficient energy to escape toward the center grid for another attempt. This keeps ions from randomly flowing around the reactor causing low energy collisions.
Permanent magnets are used to help confine the ions into a narrow band toward the center of the well.
Attachments
Linear.png
KevinCobley
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:06 am
Real name: Kevin Cobley

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by KevinCobley »

How do you propose to overcome the Brillouin Limit? This will mean that you have only a very low density of charged particles contained by the magnetic field.

Also the decelerating ions that don't interact will produce Brehmstrallung radiation as they decelerate in the field - this lost energy would have to be captured and recycled if you want to make net fusion energy.

Finally, Coulomb scattering will require that energy be spent re-focussing the beams after collision. The scattering is likely to be uniform in all directions leading to a general spreading of the beam, so the H field will do work to refocus them (assuming they dont impact a conducting surface on the way)

I thought about a similar scheme, but it seems not to solve many of the main problems of the Fusor and introduces some new problems by its linear nature.

Kevin
Last edited by KevinCobley on Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don't ask me - I know very little.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Richard Hull »

I am sure this design with minor modifications will fuse. Now, who will build it? Certainly not the proposer.... as usual. Will it fuse better than a regular simple fusor? ......Again, who is going to build it to prove it will?
Will it cost more than a regular simple fusor? Absolutely
Who has the extra cash, verve and know-how to make the ion guns, magnetic cusps, etc.?

It is really a straight-forward design as it is exactly what the original Farnsworth team did in 1964, but with a spherical chamber and 6 and then 8 centrally focused ion guns. Cost? About $250,000 in 1964 money.

Another brilliant armchair idea bites the dust.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
KevinCobley
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:06 am
Real name: Kevin Cobley

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by KevinCobley »

Go easy on the poor guy - at least he's having a think about it. We all have to start in our heads to begin with - thats what makes Humans unique - our capacity for imagination.

I guess I'm interested to know whether the folks here agree with Todd Rider's analysis which basically claims all fusion reactors are impossible to make break even, or whether we think there is a chink of hope?

No doubt I should go search the archives..

Kevin.
Don't ask me - I know very little.
User avatar
Jason C Wells
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 7:11 pm
Real name: Jason C Wells

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Jason C Wells »

I never shared my early designs with anyone. I was inspired by the polywell. My first concept was to make the polywell more spherical by making a dodecahedron apparatus. I wanted to squash those leaky cusps Bussard complained about. The polywell was expensive though. I was half way into linear acceleration before I made my first post here.

I wonder what I would think if I went back and looked at those designs now, knowing what I know. Maybe I should burn them before anybody finds out. There are a lot of ways to do this hobby badly. This community is tough, and tough it should be. I appreciate that about you guys.

Regards,
Jason C. Wells
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Richard Hull »

Thanks for the comments about our being tough. I have been accused of negativity. Actually I am a set of gravity boots to wild ideas that fly in the face of common, easily acquired, basic knowledge.

Your comment about "the doing" was a revelation you experienced due to that "doing" you did. The "doing always shines a blinding light on the realities involved with fusion or any true effort that involves real hands-on, time and treasure. Ideas flood the active, thoughtful brain.... Most all have flaws. Only those that are shared can be critcally reviewed by one's peers. Peers who have been there, spent their time lashed to the mast, learned from their hands-on experience, personal time spent in the effort and personal treasure never to be returned, to "do" and actually did!

Negative returns on an idea by those in the know who offer reasoned responses from hard won experience is not to be laughed at or totally ignored, lest you proceed at your own risk. However if one's idea is so great and burning within, we can only say, "show me". Now the ball is firmly back in the poser's court and senselessly bouncing. Most posers of ideas just let that ball go through the naturally occuring decay of the bounce and allow it to roll aimlessly over to the sidelines. This is because they only have ideas and do not pack the gear to do.

Ideas that are based on real science with real physics behind them are the ones we respond to seriously. Wild machinations where physics is not even good enough to be considered dead wrong, but are more of a word salad of terms strung together with no real connection to reality are the ones that get either no response or terse rebuffs.

We and I am tough as we need to keep this site's goal of amateur fusion and all of the many facets involved in the "doing" focused, active and free of detritus

Thanks again for sharing you real world experiences with us related to your project. This is what the site is all about.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Steven Sesselmann
Posts: 2127
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
Real name: Steven Sesselmann
Location: Sydney - Australia
Contact:

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Steven Sesselmann »

Royce,

Your design is not completely novel. I have been building linear colliders for 10 years, just search the forum for STAR and FICS, both produced neutrons.

With the right parameters the ions can be made to recirculate through the cathode, so you don't need an ion source at both ends.

I am now working on FICS-IV but it will take some time to finish. I will post more on it later.

Steven
12002375_10154167872903368_2037041056255952264_o.jpg
11540875_10154167872908368_3627956946000722319_o.jpg
http://www.gammaspectacular.com - Gamma Spectrometry Systems
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Sesselmann - Various papers and patents on RG
Dan Tibbets
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:29 am
Real name:

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Dan Tibbets »

Some observations that may be pertinent. The sweat spot for D-T fusion is closer to 50 KV or even 35 KV once some thermalization issues are considered. D-D would be closer to 100KV.
Lateral confinement by magnetic fields is a leaky process. With cusps and ExB cross field diffusion, loses can mount up. Edge instabilities may also contribute. Consideration of recirculation of the plasma through the cusps may be a critical component of such designs (re the Lockheed approach and the Polywel).

With a fusion/ fission approach many of the considerations are eased considerably. The fission provides the power, the fusion is just a neutron source to drive a subcritical fissionable fuel to the desired output. This is a different control mechanism than control rods balancing the system at supercritical boundaries and may lend itself to more control and robustness. The conventional fission reactor can be scrammed (emergency shutdown) but the reactor cannot then be easily restarted (I think). The issues with heat, radioactive decay heat management, etc would not be changed. As such I am uncertain what is gained by using a fusion moderator for the fission process, except as I mentioned- a perhaps finer and forgiving control.

Beam- beam fusion has advantages, but it is more challenging. If you can focus two opposing beams of fusable ions through a tiny intercept area and have at least some degree of ion repeat passes, even a low density , perhaps below the Brillion limit might produce enough fusion , at least for the fusion/ fission approach. But, if this was easy, then it would have been done long ago. Cathode grid transparency is still a problem. The approach using electrostatic acceleration that avoids this is the Polywell and to a lesser extent some other experiments. A group of MIT graduates tried to do this with focused multiple electrode directed spherical convergence of multiple beams, but they ran out of money and abandoned the effort. I don't know if they made any progress.

I think Boeing has proposed a fusion/ fission hybrid, except they propose laser heated fusion instead of electrostatic heating.

Dan Tibbets
Royce Jones
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:38 pm
Real name: Royce Jones

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Royce Jones »

Better control is one major plus for Fusion/Fission but also there is the potential for fission fuel breeding using the Fusion generated neutrons. For example using UF6, which is a waste product of fission fuel production, the fusion generated neutrons can transmute the U238 into Plutonium. Another example would be transmuting Thorium into U233. So the fusion reactor can more rapidly breed fission fuel. Why would you want to do this? Well, producing energy would be one example, powering a Starship would be another.
JoseRey
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:42 pm
Real name: José Rey López

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by JoseRey »

Royce Jones wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:49 am Better control is one major plus for Fusion/Fission but also there is the potential for fission fuel breeding using the Fusion generated neutrons. For example using UF6, which is a waste product of fission fuel production, the fusion generated neutrons can transmute the U238 into Plutonium. Another example would be transmuting Thorium into U233. So the fusion reactor can more rapidly breed fission fuel. Why would you want to do this? Well, producing energy would be one example, powering a Starship would be another.
m'man, do you know what's the neutron flux of a fission reactor?

using fusion reactors for that is pointless
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Richard Hull »

There remains no source of continuous, un-interrupted, intense, stable neutron flux on earth, other than a functioning fission reactor..... Period!
Fusion??? Phooey......

Nothing on this planet breeds fission or fusion fuel like a real fission reactor. All other neutron sources don't rise to the elevated level of even dis-honorable mention. At best, they are struggling little putt-putt boats in a child's bathtub in comparison.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
User avatar
Rich Feldman
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:59 pm
Real name: Rich Feldman
Location: Santa Clara County, CA, USA

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Rich Feldman »

There are some world-class accelerator based neutron sources that get pretty darn close (as laboratory beamlines for studying materials or basic physics). When high neutron fluences are needed for production processes, whether breeding fuel or doping silicon ingots, the work has to be within or very close to a fission reactor core, like Richard said.
fluxes.JPG
Found that in a paper written by a spallation enthusiast: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCL ... 099436.pdf
It also has a tantalizing mention of pulsed fission reactors.
flux2.JPG
All models are wrong; some models are useful. -- George Box
JoseRey
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:42 pm
Real name: José Rey López

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by JoseRey »

Rich Feldman wrote: Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:32 am There are some world-class accelerator based neutron sources that get pretty darn close (as laboratory beamlines for studying materials or basic physics). When high neutron fluences are needed for production processes, whether breeding fuel or doping silicon ingots, the work has to be within or very close to a fission reactor core, like Richard said.

fluxes.JPG
Found that in a paper written by a spallation enthusiast: http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCL ... 099436.pdf
It also has a tantalizing mention of pulsed fission reactors.flux2.JPG
But spallation sources typically don't work continuously but pulsed, so background measurements can be taken and compared to those with the pulse.

Integrated over time the amount of neutrons produced by a spallation installations is much lower that a fission reactor, but they are ok to test products, processes and instruments, for continuous breeding a fission reactor can't be beaten, it's only necessary to have a right place to put your stuff.

Anyway, fusors neutron output is soooo low that it's basically useless, and theoretical big fusion reactor would harvest the kinetic energy, to create electricity, so they aren't suited either
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Richard Hull »

Thanks for recognizing that I was talking about absolute, 100% continuous neutron flux systems that are start'em up then walk away for months, years with a good stable flux. Only one exists....Fission reactors. Waste heat makes electricity. Fission reactor neutrons can make more fission and fusion fuel if you've got the guts to breed while putting out a giga-watt or more of electricity. About as straight forward a continuous, useful, neutron source as man will have into the very distant future.

Pretty darn close wins no cigar..........Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

Currently, we have no guts and therefore, will have no glory

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
danielchristensen
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:23 pm
Real name: Daniel Christensen
Location: Sammamish, Washington

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by danielchristensen »

Hi all,

We actually operate a system that is conceptually similar to this idea at Northwest Nuclear Labs. I was involved with the project that ended up retrofitting the central cathode during the 2014-2015 school year. We did not, however, experiment with magnets because would cause complexity that is not necessarily beneficial to a team of high school freshmen that have very little experience around fusors. We were already operating a cathode that differed from the traditional geodesic grid, which can be seen in the image below (which is a helium plasma instead of deuterium).
Helium Plasma.png

My team went a step further and implemented a single ring as a cathode, which is seen in the below images. The top photo comes from my current research into Langmuir probe plasma imaging, which is a story for another time.
Probe in Plasma 3.jpg
Expanding Deuterium Plasma.jpg
When we implemented the linear cathode, we saw an increase in neutron flux of around 12%, which brought us up to the range of 1 million neutrons per second. We originally attributed this to higher plasma density, which was based solely on visual evidence (brighter plasma). We plan to test this claim once our imaging system is operational.

Regards,
Daniel Christensen
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Richard Hull »

Thanks Daniel. A number of years ago Jon Rosenstiel experimented with a number of different grids even a solid ball and it did fusion! The grid design is not hyper critical. A needle point will do fusion just fine. Doug Coulter has used only a cylinder grid in his superb fusor for years. This is just a form of a ring with large width. We never touted or offered the spherical or the geodesic as as the absolute and only grid, but just a typical original design.

We look forward to your future reports on the ring grid. Keep us in the loop. We are now seeing, through others efforts, that a spherical chamber of larger size is not needed. Smaller may be better.

Folks pokin' around in the fusor area is always a good thing. Remember, "Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I am doing."

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello Dan,

>Beam- beam fusion has advantages, but it is more challenging. If you can focus two opposing beams of fusable ions through a tiny
>intercept area and have at least some degree of ion repeat passes, even a low density , perhaps below the Brillion limit might
>produce enough fusion , at least for the fusion/ fission approach. But, if this was easy, then it would have been done long ago.

Old but interesting post. So one remark:

I simulated this type of working in the following conditions. I supposed a symmetrical linear trap with Einzel lenses for ions confinement. I supposed a D2 GFIS (to say very brillant) (at 12 KV) ion source in one side and a T2 GFIS ion source (at 12 KV) in the other side. Voltage on electrode is reasonable (<200 kV) (to avoid a discharge beween electrodes). If you suppose that the GFIS source ions supply ions in an area such that the diameter is equal to 2 nm (0.002 microns), with a current of 7 mA (if fact impossible for a GFIS but it is an hypothesis), the trajectories being parallel (i.e the source emittance being equal to 0), it works (in simulation ☺). You can produce up to 5000 W of fusion power for 7x12x2=168 W of kinetic power. The Einzel lenses are able to confine (or lets's say able to limit) the space charge effect and coulombian collisions effect. The problem is that source ions emittance is not equal to 0 (for example a GFIS sends ions inside a solid angle of about 1°). Einzel lenses cannot prevent trajectories to quit the ideal tube of 2 nm of diameter. I tried also with a magnetic field up to 1 Tesla, but it does not work (as it is too much weak).

One solution would be to suppose very high voltages on electrodes (let's say 10 MV or more), to make Einzel lenses extremely efficient which is not possible without discharge and/or very high magnetic fields which is not possible either.

So there is no trivial solutions (even simulated)...

Patrick
Nnnnnnn
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:25 pm
Real name: Niels Geerits

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Nnnnnnn »

There actually is a continuous spallation source at PSI. I think it produces about 1 order of magnitude fewer neutrons than the ILL reactor. Though other spallation sources are pulsed, this can be advantagous depending on your application, since the pulsed nature gives you wavelength resolution. So it really depends on your application which source is more suited. If flux (integrated over energy) is the only parameter you are after then yes a power generating reactor wins everytime: ILL is the highest power research reactor at 60MW or so a power generating reactor will easily be in the GW range. Useful for breeding sure, they aren't used for science AFAIK.
Last edited by Nnnnnnn on Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
John Futter
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:29 pm
Real name: John Futter
Contact:

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by John Futter »

For gods sake stop repeating what others have written
you are not paying for the server data storage are you????
We can all read and seeing it posted again is a pain in the backside
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Richard Hull »

It seems only John and I press for this noise reduction factor on a regular basis.

This is not your average zip through blog or forum but a serious forum of relatively smart and serious folks who can read and do read each and every thread and can actually remember key points in the thread's previous main subject and its many replies.

Quoting is OK if you see some good quotes or ideas worth considering from other entirely different posted past threads to perhaps bring home a number of points in a new thread that you deem relevant to you effort within the new thread. A reference to the URL of the thread from which you dragged over the quote is always appreciated.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Nnnnnnn
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:25 pm
Real name: Niels Geerits

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Nnnnnnn »

John, I deleted the quote. Assuming the information is stored as ascii that saved around 1.4kB (50n$). So I guess it is more about personal preferences, but since I don't pay I will abide by the hosts rules. Ironically discussing noise generates noise. I think these three posts distract more from the original topic than quotes do.
User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 14976
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Richard Hull »

For me, it has nothing to do with bytes consumed, but the assumption by the poster that no one has read any of the preceding parts of the thread.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Justin Fozzard
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:11 am
Real name: Justin Fozzard
Location: Essex, England

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Justin Fozzard »

Glasstone and Lovberg (Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions, 1960, p.67) discuss colliding beams as a possible approach to fusion and give some interesting figures that will put the idea into perspective.
They suggest colliding two 50keV deuteron beams with a (realistically achievable) current density of 100A/sq.cm, about 6x10^20 deuterons per sq.cm per second.
The mean velocity at 50keV is 2x10^8 cm/sec.
For the D-D reactions at 100keV (the relative collision energy of the beams), the power density would be about 10^-4 W/cu.cm and 2x10^-2 W/cu,cm for the D-T reaction. This would increase to 7x10^-4 W/cu.cm for 500keV beams but be less for D-T reactions due to the decrease in cross section.

Note that the beam power would be around 10MW for an output of a few hundred microwatts of fusion power at best.
As you can see, colliding beams are not really a realistic proposition for a fusion reactor, but might make an interesting demonstration device.
Patrick Lindecker
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:47 am
Real name: Patrick Lindecker
Location: Maisons-Alfort France

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Patrick Lindecker »

Hello Justin and all,

Interesting information. However, I suppose that the beams were not confined. Without confinement, as you know the beams expand due to space charge and collisions.Here a snapshot of beams confined in a trap and of course not confined outside the trap. It can be seen (I hope) that ions expand and so the density rapidly decreases (the number of fusions/s being proportional the density^2).

Image

Patrick

Note about quoting:
I don't know why it is not recommended to quote (in fact the inverse is recommended...). Sometimes without quote, the post is difficult (let's say impossible) to understand because it misses the exact context, and it is frustating. I'm new in this forum but I see that it is a forum of technicians, so used to be very precise in their work, and precision is the key because nobody can guess what you have in the head.
However enormous quotes (as sometimes it is seen in forums) are without interest because it does not help to distinguish the exact context, and reversely they are boring.
Attachments
Sans titre.jpg
Sans titre.jpg (9.34 KiB) Viewed 15606 times
Justin Fozzard
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:11 am
Real name: Justin Fozzard
Location: Essex, England

Re: Alternative Reactor Design

Post by Justin Fozzard »

Hello Patrick,
Have you looked at the mean free path of the colliding beams?
Richard Hull has posted a very useful FAQ on the topic:
viewtopic.php?t=3557

You will find that even if you have some method of "compressing" the beams and re-circulating them, the chances of collision are pretty meager.

The Brillouin limit will affect any magnetically confined single component beam. See section C of this paper:
http://positrons.ucsd.edu/papers/NNP10.pdf

Another useful paper concerning electrons in magnetic fields is here:
http://sites.apam.columbia.edu/CNT/publ ... ylimit.pdf
(You can substitute the ion charge and mass in the equations to get an idea of the confinement limits for cylindrical deuterium beams)

A good general discussion of magnetic electrostatic plasma confinement can be found here:
http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Magn ... nement.pdf

Finally, I would recommend reading Todd Rider's PhD thesis and subsequent papers for a good overview of the problems we face trying to fuse non-equilibrium plasmas at anything other than minuscule power output levels. (As Richard has pointed out many times before.)

Justin Fozzard
Post Reply

Return to “Advanced Technical Discussion Area”